Re: backport mseal and mseal_test to 6.10

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 10:17:48PM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> How are you?
> 
> What is the process to backport Pedro's recent mseal fixes to 6.10 ?

Please read:
    https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how all of this works :)

> Specifically those 5 commits:
> 
> 67203f3f2a63d429272f0c80451e5fcc469fdb46
>     selftests/mm: add mseal test for no-discard madvise
> 
> 4d1b3416659be70a2251b494e85e25978de06519
>     mm: move can_modify_vma to mm/vma.h
> 
>  4a2dd02b09160ee43f96c759fafa7b56dfc33816
>   mm/mprotect: replace can_modify_mm with can_modify_vma
> 
> 23c57d1fa2b9530e38f7964b4e457fed5a7a0ae8
>       mseal: replace can_modify_mm_madv with a vma variant
> 
> f28bdd1b17ec187eaa34845814afaaff99832762
>    selftests/mm: add more mseal traversal tests
> 
> There will be merge conflicts, I  can backport them to 5.10 and test
> to help the backporting process.

5.10 or 6.10?

And why 6.10?  If you look at the front page of kernel.org you will see
that 6.10 is now end-of-life, so why does that kernel matter to you
anymore?

> Those 5 fixes are needed for two reasons: maintain the consistency of
> mseal's semantics across releases, and for ease of backporting future
> fixes.

Backporting more to 6.10?  Again, it's end-of-life, who would be
backporting anything else?

confused,

greg k-h